Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
- Feb 14, 1953 when they got married
- Jan 9, 1963 when Carmen (respondent) left home in Bacolod to go to Manila
- March 12, 1963 Carmen filed a complaint for custody of children as well as support in
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila
o Before it pushed through though they reached a settlement where the two eldest kids
would go to petitioner Alfonso and the youngest would stay with Carmen
o This was affirmed by the CFI
- May 7, 1963 respondent filed a motion for the custody of all children be given to her in
JDRC since she said she only entered into agreement to gain custody of her younger children
and thus should be given custody of the older ones as well who are all below 7 years old.
- CA: ruled that compromise agreement as relating to custody of children should be declared
null and void and as such the execution of said judgment is void too.
FACTS:
Luisa Goitia y de la Camara, petitioner, and Jose Campos y Rueda, respondent, were married on
January 7, 1915 and had a residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino Manila. They stayed together for a
month before petitioner returned to her parents home. Goitia filed a complaint against respondent
for support outside the conjugal home. It was alleged that respondent demanded her to perform
unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs. Petitioner refused to perform such acts and
demanded her husband other than the legal and valid cohabitation. Since Goitia kept on refusing,
respondent maltreated her by word and deed, inflicting injuries upon her lops, face and different
body parts. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent and stated that Goitia could not compel her
husband to support her except in the conjugal home unless it is by virtue of a judicial decree granting
her separation or divorce from respondent. Goitia filed motion for review.
ISSUE: Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to support her outside the conjugal home.
HELD:
The obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife is created merely in the act of
marriage. The law provides that the husband, who is obliged to support the wife, may fulfill the
obligation either by paying her a fixed pension or by maintaining her in his own home at his option.
However, this option given by law is not absolute. The law will not permit the husband to evade or
terminate his obligation to support his wife if the wife is driven away from the conjugal home because
of his wrongful acts. In the case at bar, the wife was forced to leave the conjugal abode because of
the lewd designs and physical assault of the husband, she can therefore claim support from the
husband for separate maintenance even outside the conjugal home.
Quimiguing vs Icao
TITLE: Quimiguing vs Icao
CITATION: 34 SCRA 132
FACTS:
Carmen Quimiguing, the petitioner, and Felix Icao, the defendant, were neighbors in Dapitan City
and had close and confidential relations. Despite the fact that Icao was married, he succeeded to
have carnal intercourse with plaintiff several times under force and intimidation and without her
consent. As a result, Carmen became pregnant despite drugs supplied by defendant and as a
consequence, Carmen stopped studying. Plaintiff claimed for support at P120 per month, damages
and attorneys fees. The complaint was dismissed by the lower court in Zamboanga del Norte on the
ground lack of cause of action. Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint that as a result of the
intercourse, she gave birth to a baby girl but the court ruled that no amendment was allowable since
the original complaint averred no cause of action.
ISSUE: Whether plaintiff has a right to claim damages.
HELD:
Supreme Court held that a conceive child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional
personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines. The conceive child may also receive donations and be accepted by those
persons who will legally represent them if they were already born as prescribed in Article 742.
Lower courts theory on article 291 of the civil code declaring that support is an obligation of parents
and illegitimate children does not contemplate support to children as yet unborn violates article 40
aforementioned.
Another reason for reversal of the order is that Icao being a married man forced a woman not his
wife to yield to his lust and this constitutes a clear violation of Carmens rights. Thus, she is entitled
to claim compensation for the damage caused.
WHEREFORE, the orders under appeal are reversed and set aside. Let the case be remanded to
the court of origin for further proceedings conformable to this decision. Costs against appellee Felix
Icao. So ordered.
Both parties appealed from this judgment, but notwithstanding the appeal, the partition
of the property, by means of commissioners, was proceeded with. These latter, after
various vicissitudes, rendered their report and account of the partition to the court, who
then rendered final judgment, from which, also, both parties appealed.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of First Instance over the case and partition of property as
decided by the court should be affirmed.
Held:
The partition of property decreed in the judgment appealed from of the 9th of
September, 1911, should be and is hereby confirmed.
The two judgments appealed from are hereby affirmed, without special pronouncement
of costs in this instance.
Ratio:
The authority of jurisdictional power of courts to decree a divorce is not comprised within
the personal status of the husband and wife, simply because the whole theory of the
statutes and of the rights which belong to everyone does not go beyond the sphere of
private law, and the authority and jurisdiction of the courts are not a matter of the private
law of persons, but of the public or political law of the nation. The jurisdiction of courts
and other questions relating to procedure are considered to be of a public nature and
consequently are generally submitted to the territorial principle. . . . All persons that have
to demand justice in a case in which foreigners intervene, since they can gain nothing
by a simple declaration, should endeavor to apply to the tribunales of the state which
have coercive means (property situated in the territory) to enforce any decision they may
render. Otherwise, one would expose himself in the suit to making useless expenditures
which, although he won his case, would not contribute to secure his rights because of
the courts lack of means to enforce them. (Torres Campos, Elementos de Derecho
International Privado, p. 108.) Justice, says the same professor, is a principle
superior to that of nations, and it should therefore be administered without taking into
any account whatsoever the state to which the litigants belong. . . . In order to foster
their relations and develop their commerce, all civilized nations are interested in doing
justice, not alone to their own people, but to those foreigners who contract within the
country or outside of it juridical ties which in some manner effect their sovereignty. (Ibid,
p. 107.) Might its courts, in some cases, in suits between foreigners residing in its
territory, apply the personal law of the parties, but abdicate their jurisdiction, refrain from
administering justice because the personal law of the foreigner gave the jurisdiction of
the given case to some court that is not the territorial one of the nation? This has never
yet been claimed in any of the theories regarding the conflict of laws arising out of
questions of nationality and domicile; it would be equivalent to recognizing
extraterritorial law in favor of private persons. The provisions of article 80 of the Civil
Law of Spain is only binding within the dominions of Spain. It does not accompany the
persons of the Spanish subject wherever he may go. He could not successfully invoke it
if he resided in Japan, in China, in Hongkong or in any other territory not subject to the
dominion of Spain. Foreign Catholics domiciled in Spain, subject to the ecclesiastical
courts in actions for divorce according to the said article 80 of the Civil Code, could not
allege lack of jurisdiction by invoking, as the law of their personal statute, a law of their
nation which gives jurisdiction in such a case to territorial courts, or to a certain court
within or without the territory of their nation.
It is a question that has already been settled in two decisions of the Supreme Court
(Benedicto vs. De la Rama, 3 Phil. Rep., 34, and Ibaez vs. Ortiz, 5 Phil. Rep., 325).
In the present action for divorce the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila did not
lack jurisdiction over the persons of the litigants, for, although Spanish Catholic subjects,
they were residents of this city and had their domicile herein.